Scene iii:-(1) 33-41. Compare with the customs of war of modern times. Why does so great a difference exist?

Scene iv-(1) Why is this scene written in French? Would not the play have been better if Katharine had possessed some positive characteristics? Why does she desire to learn English?

Scene v:-(1) 5, 11, 15. Why are these expressions in French? Would not English have been better?

Scene vi:-(1) 132-139. How reconcile this injudicious speech with Henry's qualities as a general?

Scene vii:-(1) 1-23. Why this frivolous talk about horses? (2) 18. What has color to do with the qualities of a horse?

(3) 117-131. Why does Shakespeare represent the French as having such an opinion of the English? Is there any historical basis for this?

ACT IV.

Scene i:-(1) 141-151. Show whether this argument is sound or

not.

(2) 199-201. What makes this speech artistic on the part of Shakespeare?

(3) 241, 242. How does this illustrate Shakespeare's style? (4) 286-290. This is an old custom. What does it teach concerning the church of that time?

Scene ii:-(1) 16-19. Is this the kind of a speech to stimulate real courage? Why, or why not?

Scene iv:-(1) What object had Shakespeare in inserting this scene? Is it, or is it not creditable to his genius and character?

(2) 73-75. What makes these lines artistic on the part of Shakespeare?

Scene vi:-(1) 11-19. Show whether such indifference to death was common among English noblemen of Shakespeare's or any previous time.

(2) 38, 39. Show whether this command was necessary.

Scene vii:-(1) 19–44. What is the suggestiveness of these lines? (2) 50-53. Compare this with the modern method.

(3) 65-77. A gloomy picture. Verify it historically.

(4) 97-102. Why this reference to being of Welsh birth? Scene viii:—(1) 81-84. Verify these figures historically.

ACT V.

Scene ii:-(1) 39-59. A graphic picture of the effects of war. What Duke of Burgundy made this speech? What is the interval of time between the battle of Agincourt and this interview? What compelled Shakespeare so to violate the unity of time?

(2) 131-135. Show whether this was an excellent way love.

CHARACTER OF HENRY V. (HIS AGE 27-32.)

(1) Personal appearance:-V, ii, 143-146; 219-224. Intellect:-(1) A fine scholar, I, i, 38–52.

of making

(2) Philosophical, I, ii, 271, 272; III, i, 3–6; IV, i, 4–12; 18–23; V, ii, 154–161.

(3) A fine orator, III, i.

(4) Argumentative, IV, i, 141-176.

(5) A clear thinker, IV, i, 221-272.

(6) Has a knowledge of human nature, V, ii, 83-90; 191-196. (7) Shrewd, II, ii, 39-46; 79, 80; V, ii, 169–172; 328-330. (8) Ironical, I, ii, 259; II, ii, 20-23; 52, 53; 66-69.

(9) Humorous, IV, vii, 110-147.

Moral nature:-(1) Conscientious, I, ii, 13-17; IV, i, 280–282. (2) Devout, I, ii, 289, 290; 302, 303; IV, iii, 132; IV, viii, 100-114; V, Prologue, 21, 22.

(3) Magnanimous, IV, iii, 34-39.

(4) Modest, IV, vii, 97–114; V, Prologue, 17-20.

(5) Just, II, ii, 166-181; III, vi, 101–107.

(6) Considerate of others, IV, vii, 165–170. (7) Brave, IV, iii, 90–92.

(8) Energetic, II, iv, 97–101; 141–143.

(9) Extremely frank, III, vi, 132–139.

(10) Not over-confident, IV, vii, 77–80.

(11) Blunt, V, ii, 122-125; 146-149; 161-164.

(12) A thorough soldier, III, iii, 4, 5; IV, Prologue, 28-47. (13) Ambitious, IV, iii, 28, 29.

There are two lines in Othello which have always seemed to me very perplexing. As ordinarily printed, they appear so irreconcilable with what we call 'good English,' that I cannot but suppose the text

erroneous.

I.

Man but a rush against Othello's breast
And he retires, etc.-V, ii, 270.

Any one reading this attentively will naturally ask himself What is it to "man" a rush? If I want to man one what must I do?' The only explanation given of it, that I know, is that the word man is here used as a verb in the same sense as when we say 'man the guns, or 'man the yards'; but it is quite unsatisfactory, for when so used, the word always imports the application of several men to a single instrument, or to the doing of a single act. To man the guns requires a crew to each gun: to man the yards, the whole ship's company is turned out. In like manner we read that the garrison was insufficient to man the walls, and I believe I have heard on shipboard the order to man the windlass or the capstan bars. So Mr. Gladstone lately spoke of manning the Parliament. But in all these cases and all others that I can think of, the word imports ex vi termini, the concurrence of many men to a single act or operation. Who ever heard of manning a sword,

or a musket, an axe, a plough, a pen, or a cudgel? And here the discourse is of swords.

'Behold' says Othello

I have a sword.

A better never did itself sustain
Upon a soldier's thigh.

Then suddenly changing his mood, but still keeping in mind the idea of an attack with weapons, he utters the words above quoted. In plain prose the idea expressed is this; there is no need to use a sword against me; a mere rush will be sufficient. But if Gratiano could not properly be said to man a sword against him, how could the term be applied to so worthless a weapon as a rush?

The correction I have to offer is not my own, but that of a gentleman whose abundant though sometimes slipshod scholarship, and fine taste, give to his suggestion a certain weight of quasi authority. I was sitting one evening in company with a few friends, of whom the late Mr. Samuel Ward was one. During a pause in the conversation, I casually took up a volume of Shakspere from the table and read aloud the line in question. 'Sam,' said I, 'what in the world does that mean? How are you going to man a rush any more than you can man a needle, a pin, or a bodkin?' He read the passage, and after a moment's thought, said, 'I never noticed it before, but as printed it is certainly nonsense: are you sure it is not a misprint for aim? the letters are nearly the same, and the words might easily be mistaken for one another: "Aim but a rush" would make sense: what do you think?'

Whatever I thought before, I have ever since thought he was right and that the word man is simply a misprint for aim.

II. The second line I refer to is that next to the conclusion of Iago's verse in praise of a 'deserving woman indeed.'

She was a wight, if ever such wight were.

-II, i, 59.

The difficulty here is in the word wight, which is never applied to a woman. I do not deny that the dictionaries give it as of common gender; but it is thus defined, solely on the authority of this single line of Shakspere, and I confess I think the authority insufficient. The word was formerly of very common use espe

cially in poetry, where it still retains a place. It scarce seems credible that, if it were recognized as equally applicable to persons of either sex, but a single application of it to a female can be found in the whole range of English literature. Shakspere himself uses it many times, but always in a masculine sense, save in this instance, if this be one.

Which is more probable, that a noun of common gender should, in the whole body of our literature, be used but once in a female sense, or that the instance in which it appears to be so employed, should be a typographical error? The chances seem to me largely in favor of the latter supposition; and the probability is increased when it is seen that substitution of another word almost identical in sound makes good the sense without violating the rhythm. Look at the situation: Iago, Cassio, Emilia, and Desdemona, while awaiting Othello's arrival, are passing the time in light, bantering conversation. The presence of the General's young bride naturally makes wives and wifely qualities the topic. Desdemona asks, 'How would you praise me?' Iago answers,

If she be fair and wise,-fairness and wit,

The one's for use, the other useth it.

-Ibid. 130.

Then comes the question, 'How if she be black and witty?' then, 'How if fair and foolish?' then, foul and foolish?' and finally the inquiry is made, ' What praise wouldst thou bestow on a deserving woman indeed?' which leads Iago to sum up the qualities of a good wife:

She that was ever fair and never proud,

Had tongue at will, and yet was never loud;
Never lacked gold, and yet went never gay,
Fled from her wish, and yet said 'now I may;'
She that being angered, her revenge being nigh,
Bid her wrong stay, and her displeasure fly;

She that in wisdom never was so frail

To change the cod's head for the salmon's tail,

She that could think and ne'er disclose her mind,

See suitors following and not look behind,

She was a wight?